Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa doxa -- All glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos)
The Fundamental Fraud: Paying for Nothing
Imagine walking into a
restaurant, paying $50 for a meal, and receiving an empty plate. The fraud
would be obvious, undeniable, and legally actionable. Now imagine paying a
social media platform to promote your posts to a wider audience, only to have
that same platform secretly restrict your reach to zero -- while still taking
your money. This is not hypothetical. This is exactly what happened in
Richards v. X Corp (Case
No. 3:25-cv-00916, N.D. Tex.), a federal lawsuit alleging that X (formerly
Twitter) accepted payment for post promotion while simultaneously shadowbanning
the paying customer -- a practice that constitutes breach of contract, consumer
fraud, and theft of services under established legal principles.
This is not "a whole other
form of capitalism," as some might charitably describe it. Capitalism
requires quid pro quo -- something for something. When X takes payment for
promotion and delivers suppression instead, the fundamental exchange principle
breaks down entirely. This is not capitalism. This is κλοπή (klopē -- theft)
dressed in corporate branding.
But the story does not end with
X Platform's alleged fraud. What happened in the federal courthouse may be even
more troubling: a Trump-appointed judge created a procedural labyrinth so
impossible to navigate that the plaintiff was effectively coerced into
dismissing his own case -- a dismissal under ἀνάγκη (anankē -- duress), not
genuine choice.
Why Section 230 Does Not Shield Platform Fraud
X Corp likely anticipated
defending this case behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the
statute that has shielded tech platforms from countless lawsuits. But contract
claims and fraud claims occupy fundamentally different legal territory than the
third-party content disputes Section 230 was designed to address.
The Barnes v. Yahoo! Precedent
In Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
Section 230 does not bar promissory estoppel or breach of contract
claims against internet service providers. The court explained:
"Contract liability here would come not from Yahoo's
publishing conduct, but from Yahoo's manifest intention to be legally obligated
to do something, which happens to be removal of material from
publication."
The key distinction: When a
platform makes a legally enforceable promise -- such as accepting payment to
promote posts -- and then fails to deliver, liability arises from the breach
of contract, not from the platform's role as a "publisher."
Section 230(c)(1) protects platforms from being treated as publishers of
third-party content. It does not protect them from their own contractual
obligations.
Among
the claims in the Richards complaint were:
1. Breach of Contract:
X accepted payment for Premium services (promising "prioritized
visibility") and API access ($200 monthly) while secretly shadowbanning
the account, providing suppressed reach despite collecting fees.
2. Deceptive Trade
Practices: X made false representations about its services -- promising free
speech and neutral content moderation while implementing systematic religious
discrimination against paying subscribers.
3. Promissory
Estoppel: X induced continued platform investment through public promises of
content neutrality that it never intended to honor.
4. First Amendment
Violation: The systematic suppression of biblical and politically disfavored
content through secret algorithmic manipulation, made actionable by the
unprecedented government entanglement between X's owner and federal authority.
Had the
case not been dismissed under duress, Richards would have amended to add claims
regarding paid post promotions that were similarly shadowbanned -- paying X to
promote posts to a "wider audience" while X simultaneously suppressed
those same posts through hidden algorithmic restrictions.
These
claims do not seek to treat X as a "publisher" of third-party
content. They seek to hold X accountable for its own conduct -- taking money
while secretly suppressing the very content it was paid to amplify.
Judge Brantley Starr: A Pattern of Controversial Rulings
The case was assigned to Judge
Brantley Starr, a Trump appointee confirmed in 2019 by a 51-39 vote after
opposition from civil rights organizations. Judge Starr's pre-judicial career
included defending Texas's voter ID restrictions and advocating for voter roll
purges. His uncle is Ken Starr, the former Solicitor General who led the
Clinton impeachment investigation and later served on Donald Trump's first
impeachment defense team.
The Alliance Defending Freedom Training Fiasco
In 2023, Judge Starr ordered
three Southwest Airlines lawyers to attend eight hours of
"religious-liberty training" conducted by the Alliance Defending
Freedom (ADF), (a pro Vatican, ecumenical organization that refused to help
with my case against X stating, “Alliance Defending Freedom does not provide
legal representation for intra-faith or inter-faith disputes. We are sorry, but
if this matter involves the Vatican, it is beyond the scope of our work...” )
The training was not
requested by any party -- Starr imposed it sua sponte as a contempt
sanction.
The Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals eventually blocked the order, holding that it "plainly exceeded
remedial bounds and sought to punish Southwest's attorneys" in violation
of their constitutional rights. Even the conservative Fifth Circuit -- including
two Trump appointees -- found Starr had gone too far.
The Procedural Labyrinth: How Courts Coerce Dismissals
What happened to the Richards
v. X Corp case illustrates a pattern that extends far beyond any single
litigant: when courts create impossible procedural conditions, they can
effectively dismiss cases without ever reaching the merits.
A Sampling of Procedural Barriers Raised by Starr
|
Barrier |
What Happened |
Legal Problem |
|
Pro Hac Vice Motion |
Motion filed April 13 (Doc.
3-1) documenting 4 months of failed attempts to find local counsel. Judge
ordered plaintiff to file motion that already existed. |
Ignoring filed motions
creates false procedural record |
|
In-Person Requirement |
No in-person requirement on judge's page April-August 2025
(Wayback Machine documented). Requirement added October 2025, then applied
retroactively. |
Retroactive application of fabricated rules violates due process |
|
Venue Transfer Chaos |
Initial transfer to Fort
Worth division required $600 mandamus petition to Fifth Circuit. Vacated only
after appellate involvement. |
Procedural delays favor
well-resourced defendants |
|
Unequal Deadlines |
Plaintiff ordered to serve
within 24 hours. Defendant given 13 days to respond. |
Disparate treatment
violates equal protection principles |
The Legal Definition of Duress
Black's Law Dictionary defines
duress as "unlawful constraint exercised upon a person whereby the person
is forced to do some act against their will." Under contract law
principles that apply equally to legal proceedings, an action taken under duress
is voidable because:
•
The person lacked genuine consent
•
The action was coerced by wrongful acts
•
No reasonable alternative existed
•
The party had no real choice
When a judge creates conditions
where a litigant cannot proceed -- fabricated requirements, impossible
deadlines, ignored filings -- and the litigant then "dismisses" the
case, the dismissal was not voluntary. It was induced by judicial coercion.
The Bigger Picture: Bipartisan System Protection
Many conservatives believe
Trump-appointed judges will protect free speech and check Big Tech. Many
progressives believe Democratic appointees will hold corporations accountable.
The Richards case illustrates a different reality: the system protects
itself regardless of political affiliation.
Consider: X Corp (Elon Musk's
company) is currently suing advertisers for allegedly boycotting the platform,
claiming antitrust violations. X filed that lawsuit in the same Northern
District of Texas. When X sues to protect its revenue, the courthouse doors
open wide. When an individual sues X for defrauding him of paid promotion
services, procedural barriers multiply.
The Shadowban Reality
Shadowbanning -- the practice
of secretly restricting a user's reach without notification -- is
well-documented across platforms. In July 2024, a Dutch court found X violated
the EU's Digital Services Act and GDPR by shadowbanning PhD student Danny Mekić
without explanation. The court ordered X to compensate Mekić and provide
transparency about the restriction.
Despite Elon Musk's claims to
champion free speech, users continue reporting arbitrary shadowbans on X with
no explanation or recourse. When platforms accept payment for promotion
while secretly restricting reach, the practice crosses from content moderation
into consumer fraud.
What This Means for Everyone
If platforms can:
•
Accept payment for promotion services
•
Secretly shadowban the paying customer
•
Hide the shadowban through algorithmic opacity
•
Face no legal consequences because courts create
procedural barriers
Consider the implications: In
normal commerce, if you want wider reach, you pay for advertising. Money equals
amplification -- that's the deal. But X's system inverts this entirely. You pay
for wider reach, they take your money, and they secretly restrict you anyway.
Money no longer equals service received. When even paying cannot guarantee
delivery of paid services, the marketplace itself becomes fraudulent. The
transaction is not capitalism -- it is ἁρπαγή (harpagē -- robbery by
deception).
Then no digital transaction is
safe. Small businesses paying to promote products, churches trying to reach
members, community organizers building movements -- anyone can be defrauded
through the same mechanism, and they will never know because the
suppression is secret.
The Transparency Solution
Basic honesty in commerce would
require platforms to disclose:
1. Whether
an account is subject to visibility restrictions
2. What
specific restrictions are applied
3. Why
the restrictions were imposed
4.
Especially before accepting payment -- "Warning:
Your account is currently restricted. Promoted posts may not receive normal
reach."
This is not a radical proposal.
It is basic consumer protection: Do not take money for services you are not
providing.
The Biblical Framework: When Courts Fail
Scripture addresses both
commercial fraud and judicial corruption. Λευιτικόν (Leuitikon -- Leviticus)
19:13 commands: "Do not defraud or rob your neighbor." Ἀμώς (Amōs --
Amos) 8:5-6 condemns merchants who "make the ephah small and the shekel
great" -- selling less while charging more, which is precisely what X did:
promising promotion, delivering suppression, collecting full payment.
When Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous
Christos) overturned tables in the temple courts (Ματθαῖος/Matthaios 21:12-13),
the merchants were not violating Roman law. They were cheating worshippers
through unfair commercial practices in the one place that should have been
sacred. Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) called them "σπήλαιον λῃστῶν" (spēlaion
lēstōn -- "den of robbers").
Digital platforms have become
the public squares of modern commerce and discourse. When those platforms take
payment for services they secretly refuse to provide, they operate as κλέπται
(kleptai -- thieves). When courts then protect that fraud through procedural
manipulation, the system itself becomes corrupted.
Yet Ματθαῖος (Matthaios --
Matthew) 10:26 promises: "οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται"
(ouden gar estin kekalymmenon ho ouk apokalyphthēsetai -- "There is
nothing concealed that will not be disclosed"). The very existence of this
documentation -- court records, Wayback Machine archives, docket entries --
proves that exposure is possible even when the system prefers silence.
Conclusion: Know Them by Their Fruit
Ματθαῖος (Matthaios -- Matthew)
7:15-16 teaches: "Beware of false prophets... By their fruit you will
recognize them." What is the fruit of a platform that takes money for
promotion while secretly suppressing? What is the fruit of a judicial system that
creates impossible conditions, then calls the resulting dismissal
"voluntary"?
The Richards v. X Corp case is
not merely one litigant's battle. It is a documented example of how
institutional power protects itself through procedural manipulation when
substantive defenses would fail. X Corp could not argue that taking payment
while providing no service is lawful. It did not need to -- the procedural
barriers accomplished what the merits could not.
For those who believe
conservative judges will check Big Tech, this case offers a corrective. For
those who believe platforms deserve Section 230 immunity for all conduct, the
distinction between third-party content and contractual fraud should give pause.
For anyone who pays for digital services, the reality of secret suppression
combined with judicial indifference should prompt serious concern.
When even paying cannot
guarantee your message will be heard, and courts refuse to hold platforms
accountable for that fraud, the system serves institutional power -- not the
people it claims to protect.
Πᾶσα δόξα (Pasa
doxa -- All glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos)
Who
exposes κλοπή (klopē -- theft) disguised as commerce
Who
reveals ἀδικία (adikia -- injustice) hiding behind procedure
Who
demands δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē -- justice) even when courts fail
SpiritualySmart.com
| OvertPsyops.ai
Sources and References - Suggested by Artificial Intelligence
Case Documents
•
Richards v. X Corp, No. 3:2025cv00916 (N.D. Tex.) --
PACER Docket
•
Document 29 -- TRO Denial Order (May 14, 2025)
•
Document 76 -- Second TRO/Sanctions Denial (August 5,
2025)
•
Reason.com Volokh Conspiracy coverage (August 14, 2025)
Section 230 Jurisprudence
•
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.
2009) -- Contract claims bypass Section 230
•
ITIF, "The Exceptions to Section 230: How Have the
Courts Interpreted Section 230?" (2021)
•
Davis Wright Tremaine, "9th Circuit Panel: Section
230 Immunity Applies to Negligence Claim" (2009)
•
DOJ Review of Section 230 (May 2023)
Judge Brantley Starr Background
•
Wikipedia -- Brantley Starr
•
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, "Oppose the
Confirmation of Brantley Starr" (April 2019)
•
CNN, "Federal judge orders Southwest Airlines
attorneys to attend 'religious-liberty training'" (August 8, 2023)
•
Law Dork, "Fifth Circuit blocks religious-liberty
training order" (June 7, 2024)
•
ABA Journal, "Court's religious training order
'plainly exceeded remedial bounds'" (May 2025)
•
Legal Dive, "Federal judge seeks to prevent
generative AI mistakes in briefs" (June 1, 2023)
X Platform Shadowbanning
•
TechCrunch, "More bad news for Elon Musk after X
user's legal challenge to shadowban prevails" (July 12, 2024)
•
TechCrunch, "X users are still complaining about
arbitrary shadowbanning" (March 18, 2024)
•
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, "Danny
Mekić v. X (formerly Twitter)" case summary
•
Wikipedia -- Twitter suspensions (updated November
2025)
X Corp Advertiser Litigation
•
NPR, "Elon Musk's X sues Lego, Nestlé and more
brands" (February 1, 2025)
•
PBS NewsHour, "Musk sues advertisers over alleged
boycott" (August 6, 2024)
•
Justia Verdict, "Why Elon Musk's (and X's) Lawsuit
Against Companies Is Legally Weak" (August 26, 2024)
No comments:
Post a Comment